Adventure Gamers - Forums

Karlok - 14 December 2015 06:32 AM

Is that a fact? Let’s do the math.

In favor of the current system: Sefir - Timovieman - Iznogood - Mikekelly - Noddy - Jabod - Soccerdude. Makes seven.

Against: Karlok - rtrooney - diego - mart - giom - chrissie (?? she proposed a new rule). Makes six unless chrissie objects.

Add me to the side with Karlok, rtrooney, diego, mart, giom, and chrissie.
I definitely think a runoff vote between the tied games, where everyone can vote, is the best solution.
I’m actually kind of surprised this isn’t already the default.

Not everyone will speak up in this thread because not everyone wants to get sucked into an argument.
The “discussion” in this thread isn’t exactly friendly.

Sefir - 14 December 2015 04:48 AM

When we vote, we try to find which game will get the greatest participation. It doesn’t matter that the game wasn’t within your top choices. If you were willing to participate in it (even uneasy), you should have voted for it from the beggining

That may be how you want people to vote, but there will always be those who vote for the games they’re most enthusiastic about playing. Even if you posted a “reminder” along with the list during the voting, it’s practically a given that some will vote only for their top choice games.

And if your goal is to find the game where the most people would participate in the CPT, why are you specifically asking people who would be OK playing either game to do the choosing?

Sefir - 14 December 2015 04:48 AM

chrissie - 13 December 2015 02:50 PM

I now have changed my mind on account that there were quite a few games proposed this time that I would have been happy to have participated in a play through but just chose a few. So in the event of different games ending up in a tie it would have been good to have had the chance to choose between those that I did not cast a vote for originally but would be willing to play.

So…now that the games you chose to vote lost you are against of the tie rule because you chose to vote strategically in the first place? But as you mentioned here:

chrissie - 11 December 2015 11:45 AM

I have no problem with the members who voted for both games deciding really - I just dearly wanted Touche to win & it’s not going to…..     

you would have been ok if the games you voted would have been chosen???? I’m sorry, but this was a huge mistake of yours. You should have voted all games you were willing to play so that we should all had known which game will have the greatest participation. Strategical voting is against the interest of the community. Please tell me I misunderstood something….

I think you’re misunderstanding chrissie. After being on the losing side, she understands how people on the losing side feel when her game tied and a select few get to choose the winning game. So she changed her mind about what was equitable.
Her suggestion isn’t about JULIA vs Touche, which is a done deal at this point. It’s for future CPT’s, no matter which game she votes for in those CPT’s.

Noddy - 14 December 2015 10:16 AM

Iznogood - 14 December 2015 06:49 AM

2) What if someone who voted for one of the games tied at the top, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should their original vote automatically be carried over to the tie-breaker, or should the voting period be extended until all the original votes of the tied games have cast their vote?

I believe their votes should automatically be carried over. They have already posted their interest in playing the game, and the voting period has already been extended for long enough.

What happens to the votes from people who voted for all the tied games though? If carried over they effectively have two, or more, votes compared to everyone one else’s single vote in the 2nd round. Also, would people be allowed to change their vote(s) from the 1st round in this scenario?

Good point, logically only one vote would be counted since it’s a tie breaking vote. So I’d guess that for those, we’d have to make sure they tell us their preference…

Buldozer - 14 December 2015 11:04 AM

Is it too late to join for this joint gaming, if you are planning to play Touche: Adventure of the 5th Musketeer if I got right, I would like to join if it isn’t too late.

I’m new to that kind of stuff, but it sounds interesting to share the experience as you play, I’ll try to learn as we go.

edit:

Woah, I now ran through the thread, it looks like a court process I’ll back off until it’s decided.

Ah well, we sometimes get carried away here . J.U.L.I.A is currently running as a CPT and the dev will be stopping by.

For Touché, not sure, it might be the next CPT…  Depends on how things turn out

Very well written post Iznogood, and I think that a second vote will not be fair unless the points you discussed below are addressed, so here’s my take on it.

Iznogood - 14 December 2015 06:49 AM

But I have some follow up questions as to the details:

1) Should everybody be allowed to vote in the tiebreaker, even if they didn’t participate in the original vote?

I believe they should, otherwise what is the whole point, if you just set some new restriction on who can vote and who can’t.

 

I believe They should as well.

Iznogood - 14 December 2015 06:49 AM

2) What if someone who voted for one of the games tied at the top, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should their original vote automatically be carried over to the tie-breaker, or should the voting period be extended until all the original votes of the tied games have cast their vote?

I believe their votes should automatically be carried over. They have already posted their interest in playing the game, and the voting period has already been extended for long enough.

I agree with that too. It is unfair to penalize someone who voted the first time, if for any reason they didn’t get a chance to recast their vote, so their vote should carry over.

Iznogood - 14 December 2015 06:49 AM

3) What if some of the the other voters, NOT the ones who voted for the tie-breakers, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should the voting period then be extended?

I don’t believe it should. They have already been given two chances to vote for either of the games, and have not used either of them.

Again I agree with your proposition.

Iznogood - 14 December 2015 06:49 AM

4) What if the tie-breaker ends in a new tie?

I have no solution for this myself.

Here I think we should leave it to the person who is tallying the votes, as long as they state it clear from the beginning. Some ideas are:
1- checking the history of the votes on the games and taking the one that had the highest amount of votes before.
2- If that doesn’t come up with a clear winner, leave it to the person who is organizing the votes to decide, or maybe flip a coin. At that point, I think it doesn’t matter too much as long as it is well documented before the voting process starts.

Iznogood - 14 December 2015 06:49 AM

And let me just add how destructive I think this whole discussion has been!
The only possible purpose it has served is to scare away potential new participant of the CPT. If I were a new member and saw this constant bickering here in the CPT vote, I would run away screaming and never return.

Amen

Noddy - 14 December 2015 10:16 AM

What happens to the votes from people who voted for all the tied games though? If carried over they effectively have two, or more, votes compared to everyone one else’s single vote in the 2nd round. Also, would people be allowed to change their vote(s) from the 1st round in this scenario?

If they voted for all the tied games, they will need to cast their vote on ONE and only ONE of the games. If they can’t cast their vote in time, then their votes for all the tied games will simply carry over, and it will be as if they hadn’t voted really. I think that should be fine because the fact that they voted for all the games means that they are willing to play in all of them.

crabapple - 14 December 2015 12:07 PM

Sefir - 14 December 2015 04:48 AM

chrissie - 13 December 2015 02:50 PM

I now have changed my mind on account that there were quite a few games proposed this time that I would have been happy to have participated in a play through but just chose a few. So in the event of different games ending up in a tie it would have been good to have had the chance to choose between those that I did not cast a vote for originally but would be willing to play.

So…now that the games you chose to vote lost you are against of the tie rule because you chose to vote strategically in the first place? But as you mentioned here:

chrissie - 11 December 2015 11:45 AM

I have no problem with the members who voted for both games deciding really - I just dearly wanted Touche to win & it’s not going to…..     

you would have been ok if the games you voted would have been chosen???? I’m sorry, but this was a huge mistake of yours. You should have voted all games you were willing to play so that we should all had known which game will have the greatest participation. Strategical voting is against the interest of the community. Please tell me I misunderstood something….

I think you’re misunderstanding chrissie. After being on the losing side, she understands how people on the losing side feel when her game tied and a select few get to choose the winning game. So she changed her mind about what was equitable.
Her suggestion isn’t about JULIA vs Touche, which is a done deal at this point. It’s for future CPT’s, no matter which game she votes for in those CPT’s.

Thanks for your post crabapple, I couldn’t have expressed it better myself!

Sefir, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you organising the voting & also for leading the games as & when but I do find you a little over-analytical on occasion as to your ‘accusations’ & the reasoning behind the voting process!  Yes, I changed my mind - nothing to do with ‘strategic voting’ & just reading pages of posts where members here are expressing a desire for a more open vote in the event of a tie where I can see their point. Logical (as I was in my original thought) doesn’t always = democratic! For my part, I vote for games in a ‘pecking order’ so not necessarily those that I might be tempted to play (that didn’t vote for) if they win or might vote for in the event of a tie!       

Buldozer - 14 December 2015 11:04 AM

Is it too late to join for this joint gaming, if you are planning to play Touche: Adventure of the 5th Musketeer if I got right, I would like to join if it isn’t too late.

I’m new to that kind of stuff, but it sounds interesting to share the experience as you play, I’ll try to learn as we go.

edit:

Woah, I now ran through the thread, it looks like a court process I’ll back off until it’s decided.

Welcome to Adventure Gamers Buldozer! - it’s a pity you didn’t turn up a week earlier but never mind as I’m sure we’ll be playing Touche in the future! 

Iznogood - 14 December 2015 06:49 AM

And yes, I can live with a second vote between the games tied, where everybody can vote.
As far as I see it, it is in principle the exact same solution, with the only exception being that you need at least 5-7 days for a complete new vote, whereas the current solution only takes 1-2 days.

But I have some follow up questions as to the details:

1) Should everybody be allowed to vote in the tiebreaker, even if they didn’t participate in the original vote?

I believe they should, otherwise what is the whole point, if you just set some new restriction on who can vote and who can’t.

2) What if someone who voted for one of the games tied at the top, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should their original vote automatically be carried over to the tie-breaker, or should the voting period be extended until all the original votes of the tied games have cast their vote?

I believe their votes should automatically be carried over. They have already posted their interest in playing the game, and the voting period has already been extended for long enough.

3) What if some of the the other voters, NOT the ones who voted for the tie-breakers, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should the voting period then be extended?

I don’t believe it should. They have already been given two chances to vote for either of the games, and have not used either of them.

4) What if the tie-breaker ends in a new tie?

I have no solution for this myself.

This would be fine.
I’m less concerned with whether or not we have a 2nd tiebreaker for a 2nd tie than I am that everyone gets their vote counted, both in the original voting and in a first tiebreaker.

The only thing I wonder about is why 5-7 days would be necessary, since it’s not a complete new vote.
Only the tied games are being voted on, not all 11 (or however many).
But if other people want 5-7 days instead of 1-2, I’m OK with it. I’m also OK with 1-2 days.

crabapple - 14 December 2015 07:29 PM

The only thing I wonder about is why 5-7 days would be necessary, since it’s not a complete new vote.
Only the tied games are being voted on, not all 11 (or however many).
But if other people want 5-7 days instead of 1-2, I’m OK with it. I’m also OK with 1-2 days.

Only to give everyone (especially people who don’t visit the forums daily) a chance to cast their second vote.